ID: 2355y

George F. Ball, Esq.
Legal Staff
General Motors Corporation
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Ball:

This is in response to your letter of January 23, 1990 asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). Specifically, you asked whether the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201, which apply only to "interior compartment doors," are applicable to a portion of a new cupholder design now being developed by GM.

At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards would apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information.

With those caveats, I believe that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 would not apply to your cupholder design, as explained more fully below. In your letter, you stated that General Motors plans to offer a vehicle with a cupholder permanently installed in the console assembly between the driver and right front passenger positions. The cupholder assembly would include a pivot, which would allow the cupholder to recess into the console when it is not needed. When the cupholder is recessed, the bottom face of the cupholder assembly would be flush with the console assembly. I concur with your opinion that the bottom face of the cupholder would not appear to be covered by section 3.3 of Standard No. 201, because that bottom face does not appear to be an "interior compartment door" as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3.

The term "interior compartment door" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as "any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects." According to your letter, when the bottom of the cupholder is facing the driver and passenger (which you state is the only configuration in which it could be considered a cover), there is no storage space for personal effects.

The agency has made clear that the term "interior compartment door" does not refer to every door that covers a compartment that could potentially be used as a storage space for personal effects. For example, ash trays and spare tire compartment doors in station wagons are capable of being used as a storage space for some personal effects. However, the preamble to the final rule that added S3.3 to Standard No. 201 expressly stated that S3.3 did not apply to the covers for ash trays and spare tire compartment doors in the Standard. 33 FR 15794 (October 25, 1968). Additionally, the agency has stated in previous interpretations that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 does not apply to doors in the interior of a vehicle that do not cover a storage space for personal effects. Hence, the door to a fuse box in the interior of a vehicle was said not to be subject to S3.3 in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Bruce Henderson, and the outside surface of a fold-down table was said to be not subject to S3.3 in a January 31, 1986 letter to Mr. Russ Bomhoff.

Applying this reasoning to your new cupholder design, we would tentatively conclude that, when the cupholder is retracted, the bottom face of the cupholder is not an interior compartment door subject to S3.3 of Standard No. 201. I do not believe that the compartment that would be covered by the bottom face of the cupholder when it is retracted would be a storage space for personal effects. Even if the compartment were capable of being used as a storage space for personal effects, it would not have been installed by the manufacturer for that purpose. Therefore, the bottom face of the cupholder would not be considered an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR 571.3, and would not be subject to the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:201#571 d:2/27/90

ID: nht95-5.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carrie Stabile

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/29/95 letter from Carrie Stabile and James V. Stabile III to NHTSA Office of Chief Council

TEXT: This responds to the letter from you and your brother James Stabile regarding a "Vehicle Illuminated Warning System" that you wish to market for school buses. You have asked for its "review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards."

While your cover letter did not describe your Warning System in detail, it appears from your enclosed sketches that the system consists of panels centered in the front and rear headers through which the bus operator may provide certain illuminated messag es to other drivers. These are "School Bus" (in green), "Slow Down" (yellow), and "Do Not Pass" (red).

You indicated to Dee Fujita of my staff that you might design the system such that the messages are automatically activated in certain circumstances. You are considering designing the system such that the "School Bus" message would be illuminated while the vehicle is moving, "Slow Down" would show when the school bus driver brakes, and "Do Not Pass" when the vehicle's red lamps are activated. The message board is rimmed by small yellow and red lamps. The small yellow lamps would flash with the Slow Do wn message and the small red lamps would flash with "Do Not Pass."

The short answer is there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that specifies requirements for your Warning System. However, as explained below, your system is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, which subjects it to certain req uirements. Further, the States have the authority to regulate the use of school buses, including how the vehicles are identified. Thus, States might have requirements affecting whether your message board is permitted on school buses operating in each ju risdiction.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. n1 NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a "self-certification " process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information you provided.

n1 NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (such as your Warning System) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

To answer your letter, we will first discuss the Federal lighting requirements that apply to your system generally. Following that, we will discuss specific issues about your system.

General lighting requirements

In addition to the lighting equipment required for ordinary buses, paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Stand ard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. All other required lighting equipment, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, must be steady-burning.

Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under the following conditions. If your Warning System is to be installed by a manufacturer or dealer before the first sale and delivery of the school bus, the Warning System must not impair the effectivene ss of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 including the signal system mentioned above, that is to say, it cannot replace required equipment, or modify its performance or detract from the "message" that the required lamp is intended to imp art. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification to the vehicle that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer at that time. A dealer installing the Warning System is regarded as an alterer, and required to affix its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to conform; at that point, the dealer installing the system would make its determination that impairment di d not exist. NHTSA will not contest a determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

If the Warning System is to be installed on school buses already delivered and in use, there is no Federal requirement that the person adding the equipment certify the vehicle. However, there is a similar obligation to ensure continuing compliance. If the person is a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, under a statute that we administer, that person must ensure that installation and use of the Warning System will not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equi pment including the school bus signal lamp system. We regard "making inoperative" in this context the equivalent of "impairment" discussed in the previous paragraph.

The statute permits an exception to the above: modifications of any nature made by the school bus owner itself in its own repair facilities are not prohibited by our statute.

Specific issues concerning "impairment"

As noted above, the Warning System may be installed on new school buses if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. "Impairment" can occur in different ways. One way could be by interfering with the p erformance of required lamp system, including the required school bus warning lamps or the brake warning lamps. The following are examples of interference: * Your system could not replace the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108.

* It must not cause the yellow-red warning system to flash sequentially, rather than alternately as required by the standard.

* The Warning System must not cause the flashing of lights that must be steady-burning (e.g., the stop and taillamps, which, under Standard No. 108, must be steady-burning at all times). Your system appears to have a deceleration warning system operatin g through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. The lamps for the system must be steady-burning, and cannot flash. For the same reason, the little lights around the message board must not flash with the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" me ssages.

"Impairment" can also occur when an operator is distracted from the driving task, even momentarily. For this reason, we have discouraged the concept of message boards over the years. However, this is the first time we have been asked to consider it in the context of school bus lighting. We find that there are considerations that are relevant to the operation of school buses, that do not apply to other vehicles. A driver behind a school bus, or approaching from an opposite direction, is more likely t o be cautious because of the awareness of the importance of child safety and the penalties involved in infractions of traffic laws relating to school buses. There is less possibility of impairment existing with advisories relating directly to the action s other drivers are presumably anticipating when in the vicinity of a school bus. With this in mind, we believe your message board, which sends only three messages -- an identification of the vehicle as "School Bus" and advisories of "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" -- generally would be permitted under Standard No. 108.

There are a number of specific features about your message board, however, that could distract a driver, and thus constitute "impairment." These are as follows:

* Your sketch indicates that the lamps used for the "School Bus" message would be green. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of required exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the man datory lighting equipment.

* Another feature that could distract a driver is the message "Slow Down," which automatically illuminates anytime the school bus driver brakes. We believe this could be confusing to drivers in other lanes and oncoming vehicles, since it may lead some d rivers to believe the school bus is preparing to stop, when the bus is not. A less confusing feature would be if the Slow Down message is illuminated only when the amber school bus warning lamps flash, and not each time the driver brakes.

State requirements Because your Warning System is not a Federally required item of lighting equipment, its use is also subject to regulation under the laws of the States in which it may be used. Each State regulates the use of school buses in its highway safety programs, setting requirements for pupil transportation safety, including the identification of school buses. NHTSA has issued a number of Highway Safety Program Guidelines for States to use in establishing their highway safety programs. Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed) has recommendation that might affect your message board, if the State has decided to adopt the recommendation as State law. The Guideline recommends that school buses should, among other things,

Be identified with the words "School Bus" printed in letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571. (Section IV.B.1.a.)

Depending on the requirements a State has adopted for identifying school buses, the State might limit how your message board displays the words "School Bus," and the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages. If you have questions about State law requireme nts, we suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate the interest that you and your brother have shown in improving the safety of school children. If you have any further questions, you may call Dee Fujita (202-366-2992) or Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht87-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns the identification requirements for a master lighting switch. You stated your belief that if the headlamps and tail lamps are controlled by the master lighting switch, the switch is not required to be marked with any symbol o ther than that specified in Standard No. 101 for the master lighting switch. You also stated your belief that the manufacturer had an option to use other symbols in addition to that symbol. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2.1(a) states:

Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 (or symbol substantially similar in fo rm to that shown in column 3) or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. . . . Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. . . .

Column 3 of Table 1 designates the symbol shown In your letter for the master lighting switch. Also, footnote 2 of the table states that separate identification is not required for headlamps and tail lamps if they are controlled by a master lighting swit ch. Thus, the master lighting switch symbol is sufficient identification under Standard No. 101 for the control identified in your letter.

A drawing provided with your letter shows various positions of the master lighting switch Identified by a word or symbols, which are provided in addition to the master lighting switch symbol. As indicated in the above-quoted text, section S5.2. 1(a) perm its words or symbols in addition to the required symbol or word, for purposes of clarity.

Your second question concerns identification requirements for an upper beam control. You stated that you believe no symbol is required for the upper beam control if it is on the turn signal lever, and that it is at the manufacturer's option to use a symb ol.

Standard No. 101 does not specify any identification requirements for an upper beam control , regardless of whether it is on the turn signal lever. Thus, the manufacturer has the option of deciding whether to identify the control and, If so, how to ident ify it. We note that the symbol you plan to use for future models is the same as that designated in Standard No. 101 for the highbeam (upper beam) tell tale. Thus, your planned approach appears desirable in minimizing the number of symbols drivers must f amiliarize themselves with for the same function.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation or FMVSS 101; Controls and displays.

We believe, (1) if the head lamps and tail lamps are controlled by master lighting switch, this is not required to be marked with any symbol , other than and it is the manufacturer's option to use other symbols in addition to the, as desired.

(2) When using the turn signal lever for the upper beam control, no symbol is required, and it is at the manufacturer's option to use symbol as desired.

Shown by current models in Attachment 1 are the symbols we have been using. In future models, we plan to change the symbols to those shown by future models in Attachment 1.

Please inform us in a timely manner if these symbols are acceptable and whether our interpretation is correct. If you have any questions, please contact me at (515) 353-5444.

Sincerely, Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC. Attachment

ID: aiam1883

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This responds to Toyota's March 25, 1975, request for confirmation tha the top surface of a 'console' (a box-like unit mounted between the front bucket seats of your passenger cars) is not considered to be an armrest for purposes of the requirements of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*.; Your interpretation is correct. As described in your letter, th console top would not be an 'armrest' to which the requirements of Standard No. 201 apply.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 10673

Mr. Paul Pinoski
Project Engineer
SLP Engineering, Inc.
1501 Industrial Way North
Toms River, NJ 08755

Dear Mr. Pinoski:

This responds to your letter to me in which you requested an interpretation of the term "vehicle capacity weight," as defined in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110). I apologize for the delay in our response.

FMVSS No. 110 applies to passenger cars. Section S4.3 of the standard requires a placard to be placed on the door of the glove compartment or other accessible place on which shall be displayed, among other things, the "vehicle capacity weight." This term is defined in S3 as meaning "the rated cargo and luggage load plus 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." You asked how to obtain the "rated cargo and luggage load," so that you can calculate vehicle capacity weight.

The agency does not define the term "rated cargo and luggage load" or otherwise regulate how that load is determined. The term simply refers to the vehicle manufacturer's determination of the cargo and luggage carrying capacity of the vehicle. The choice of methodology to be used in making that determination is left to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer.

From a safety standpoint, the important issue is the overall value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a vehicle. That value is also known as the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The GVWR informs a vehicle owner how heavily he or she can load a vehicle. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." (Emphasis added.) "Rated cargo load" and "rated cargo and luggage load" are interchangeable terms.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:110#567#571 d:4/24/95

ID: nht92-6.46

DATE: May 20, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Phil Gramm -- United States Senate

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Phil Gramm (OCC 7206); Also attached to letter dated 6/1/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frank J. Sonzala (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7172)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very

limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position.

After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121, is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with ANY single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure.

ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: 18715.drn

Ms. Jean Little
Creative Child Care, Inc.
313 Harwood Road, Suite 100
Bedford, TX 76021

Dear Ms. Little:

This responds to your letter regarding the application of a law commonly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to the sale of new, large vehicles to child care centers that transport school children to and from school. As indicated by your letter, you are aware that in our view the sale of the vehicles is subject to the Safety Act. However, you disagree with our views.

At the outset, you state that you do not believe that the Safety Act (specifically, sections 30112 and 30125 of Title 49, United States Code) was intended to apply to vehicles other than those used in transportation by educational institutions. We do not agree with your position. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. One class of vehicles specifically addressed by the Act is school buses. Persons selling new "school buses" must sell vehicles that are certified as meeting Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Whether a vehicle is a "school bus" depends on the nature of the vehicle and the use -- whether the vehicle is likely to be used significantly to carry students to or from school or related events. Of particular significance in the context of your letter, the statute is not limited in its application to transportation used by educational systems. If a significant use of a bus is for transporting children to or from school, the vehicle is a school bus, regardless of whether the purchaser is a child care facility.

You also propose a delineation between a "student" and a "child" based on when the person leaves the building, grounds, activity or transportation of the educational system. That distinction is not supported by the statute. As stated above, the Safety Act defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a specified number of persons or more which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary students "to or from school or an event related to school" (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, the relevant inquiry focuses on the use of the vehicle to transport such persons to or from school or an event related to school, not on the status of being within or having departed from the educational system.

You ask how NHTSA's requirements would apply to private citizens driving "a vehicle designed to carry 10+ passengers to pick up and deliver [their] children to school every day." Our regulations would not apply in this situation. As explained as long ago as April 25, 1986, in our letter to Mr. Arnold Spencer (copy enclosed), the statutory requirement on sellers to sell school buses does not apply to privately-owned family vehicles.

We need not resolve whether child care facilities simply providing custodial care are schools under laws other than the Safety Act. The critical issue, that of regulation under the Safety Act, has little to do with the nature of the institution. The resolution of NHTSA's jurisdiction turns on the use of the vehicle. We do not see how the resolution of NHTSA's jurisdiction has any bearing on whether a child care facility is a school under State or other law.

I should add that NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For information on Texas' requirements on transportation of school children, you can contact Texas's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Sam Dixon, Director
School Transportation
Texas Education Agency
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 463-9233

You also asked about safety differences between 10+ passenger vans and school buses. Both 10+ passenger vans and school buses must meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to buses. School buses must meet additional safety standards.

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to "significantly" transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 10+ passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. I apologize for the delay in responding. I am also enclosing our publication, "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/2/99

ID: 002775cmc_phoneno

Mr. David E. Campbell
David Campbell & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 402
Westfield Center, OH 44251-0402

Dear Mr. Campbell,

This responds to your December 4, 2002, letter and conversation with

Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff concerning the labeling requirements for a child restraint system (CRS). You stated that a foreign manufacturer is planning to import CRSs into the U.S. and would like to use a non-U.S. telephone number to comply with the labeling requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The answer to your question is that use of a non-U.S. number is not prohibited under the labeling requirement, but we do have concerns about using it.

One of the most effective ways to ensure that owners of CRSs obtain the free remedy provided under a recall is through direct notification of the customer. By providing convenient methods for purchasers to register their name and address with the manufacturer, manufacturers can increase the number of customers that receive direct notification of safety related defects or noncompliances with FMVSSs. To provide convenient methods to register, FMVSS No. 213 requires that each add-on child restraint system have a postage-paid registration form and be permanently labeled with the following statement, inserting an address and telephone number:

"Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name, address, and the restraints model number and manufacturing date to (insert address) or call (insert telephone number). For recall information, call the U.S. Governments Auto Safety Hotline at 1-800-424-9393 (202-366-0123 in the DC area)." S5.5.2(m).

The labeling requirement in conjunction with the postage-paid registration card requirement encourages CRS owners to register for direct notification of a possible recall. Under 49 U.S.C. 30118, a manufacturer is required to notify owners and purchasers of a noncompliance or safety-related defect in vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including CRS. As we noted at the time this provision was adopted, requiring both an address and a telephone number on the label "make[s] it easier for a person to register" and "get the information they need." See 57 FR at 41432. Inclusion of a telephone number is particularly important for subsequent owners, who most probably would not have the postage-paid registration card.

While use of a non-U.S. telephone number is not prohibited under the FMVSS No. 213 labeling requirement, it could reduce the percentage of recalled seats returned to the manufacturer to remedy a defect or non-compliance. The cost of a long distance, out-of-country phone call could create a financial burden on CRS owners, possibly reducing the number of systems registered for recall notification, particularly by subsequent owners. By increasing the costs and inconvenience for registering a child restraint system, the number of systems registered would decrease, in turn decreasing the number of owners directly contacted in the event of a recall. The net effect of this could be that a larger number of defective or non-compliant CRSs would remain in use. For these reasons we believe a U.S. phone number should be used, and we would prefer (but do not require) manufacturers to provide a toll-free number.

A manufacturers decision not to use a U.S. phone number could have a bearing on the type of notification activities that the agency would require the manufacturer to undertake. Under 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(2), the agency can require a manufacturer of equipment to provide public notice to effectuate the recall of a defective or noncompliant CRS. In the past, CRS manufacturers have provided notice through a variety of means including, but not limited to, retailers, child safety centers, pediatricians, and the media. In recalls of a product with an out-of-country telephone registration number, the agency could require more extensive public notice efforts in order to ensure notification of owners unable to be reached directly because of an inconvenient and burdensome registration process.

Please note that foreign manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are required to designate an agent in the United States. 49 CFR 551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers, states that importers of motor vehicle equipment, including CRSs, are required to designate a permanent resident of the United States as an agent for service of process.

If you have any further questions please contact Christopher Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.2/10/03

ID: 1985-03.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 30, 1985 The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Dixie Armstrong of Chugiak, Alaska, concerning Federal regulations for school buses and school bus drivers. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. I appreciate your interest in school bus safety issues. As you may know, school buses are perhaps the safest form of transportation in America today. At the Federal level, we have taken special efforts to assure necessary safety equipment on school buses and to assure adequate protection for school bus passengers. We also work closely with the states to promote safety in the maintenance and operation of school buses. While any school bus accident resulting in injury or death to a school child is tragic, the safety record of school buses is exemplary. I have enclosed a copy of this agency's recent report on school bus safety, which may be of interest to you and your constituent. Some further background on the Federal role in school bus safety may be useful. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, is the safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards on various aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The safety standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events is considered a "school bus." If any new vehicle does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provides guidelines to the states for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), provides recommendations for school bus driver training and other operational aspects of pupil transportation. NHTSA believes in the importance of a strong pupil transportation program that includes methods of selecting and training competent school bus personnel. We must stress, however, that our authority to regulate motor vehicle safety extends primarily to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The states are responsible for determining the requirements governing the operational aspects of their pupil transportation program, including school bus driver training. The agency strongly encourages the states to adopt procedures for assuring that drivers of all commercial vehicles, including school buses, are properly qualified for their duties. Our agency also carefully monitors school bus safety developments, and we have developed procedures for reporting all fatal school bus collisions. Pursuant to Ms. Armstrong's request, I have enclosed a copy of NHTSA's directive on this subject (NHTSA Order 705-2). The agency is currently considering whether to update those procedures on school bus fatal accident reporting. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact my office if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Diane K. Steed Enclosures

ID: nht70-1.1

DATE: 04/30/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: David Sugarman, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of April 16 I enclose copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 107 (Reflecting Surfaces) and 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). Copies of the ASTM and SAE standards cross-referenced in the Federal standards are available from the American Society for Testing and Materials and the Society of Automotive Engineers. You may find particularly helpful SAE Handbook Supplement 19, "SAF Technical Reports Referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards".

The answer to your first question is that Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1970, to be equipped with a total of 4 side marker lamps and 4 side marker reflectors, one marker and one reflector, amber in color, on each side of the vehicle "as far forward as practicable", and one marker and one reflector, red in color, on each side of the vehicle, "as far to the rear as practicable" Between January 1, 1969 and January 1, 1970 the option of reflectors or markers, or a combination of the two, was permitted. Prior to January 1, 1969 the Federal lighting standard did not apply to passenger cars. I will note in passing that the rear marker lamps on the Monteverd; displayed at the recent New York show were number and must be changed to red before these vehicles are sold. There are no requirements as to size and shape of lamps and reflectors, but the SAE standards applicable to them and incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 do set forth certain photometric requirements which must be met.

In answer to your second question, Table III of Standard No. 108 requires tail lamps to be red, but permits stop lamps and rear turn signals to be either red or amber. A proposal has been issued however (35 F.R. 106) that stop lamps be red only on passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1971.

You have asked in your third question whether headlamps may be placed in the grill. The answer to this is yes, provided that this location meets the lateral spacing and height above road surface requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108. Also, headlamps must not be covered by a grille or plastic shield when in use.

Standard No. 107 does not specify a particular color for the horn ring and hub of the steering assembly but it does specify a maximum permissible value for specular glass.

Finally, other than Standard Nos. 205 (Glazing Materials) and 212 (Windshield Mounting) which all passenger cars must meet, there is no "specific safety requirement as to the windshield" for convertibles, and there is no "requirement as to a roll bar".

Sincerely,

Enclosures April 16, 1970

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Re: F.H.W.A. Temporary Exemption

No. 69-9 issued to Automobile

Monteverdi Ltd.

September 9, 1969 expiring

August 1, 1971

Gentlemen:

I represent Automobile Monteverdi Ltd. of Switzerland. In furtherance of my letter of April 9, 1970 requesting certain information as to the above, will you inform me as to the following:

1-a)Is there a safety standard requirement with regard to lights on the side of the automobile (front and/or back); if so, is it a requirement for a light or may it be a reflector?

b) Whether it is a requirement for a light or a reflector, is there a requirement as to its size or shape?

2. With regard to rear lights, brake, safety stop and blinker; is there a specific requirement as to the color of such lights, may they be red or orange etc?

3. With regard to headlights, may the manufacturer place headlights in the grill on a two seater model and a convertible model?

4. With regard to the steering wheel is there a specific requirement that the cross bar of a steering wheel be a particular color e.g. black or grey? I know that it may not be chromed.

5. With regard to a convertible model, is there a specific safety requirement as to the windshield, and is there any requirement as to a roll bar?

I would appreciate hearing from you.

Very truly yours,

David Sugarman